Pop your hood

[Lyte-]

True, But I do have a auto club membership so its a non issue for me in most cases. It would be very frustrating and a complete waste of my time to wait either for someone to bring me something to secure my hood or wait for a tow truck so I would more then likely file a complaint. It would not warrant a law suit as replacement locks would not cost much money.


How ever the type of locks that were on the hood of the car were not standard locks they were more like the lock that is built into fridges (so its not like I can just go have someone cut an extra key for those) so by trying to cut these off the officer would have also damaged the expensive carbon fiber hood. That would have been worth suing for as the replacement cost of that is much higher.

Thank you for answer my question, and I would like to add that for the most part police officers here in OC have been very professional and I have had few bad experiences.

[97F1504RAD]

The law is flawed in that it give the officer the ability to pick on cars simply because he thinks it might be modified. Regardless. There have been cases where LEO have pulled cars over strictly because they had some sticker on the car of a performace product or simply for having a body kit on the car.. This is no different than a LEO pulling someone over for having a NRA sticker on the car and wanting to search for gun.

[AJAX22]

How does this apply to Pre 1976 vehicles which are not subject to emission regulation?

are there any age/type restrictions on what the officer can inspect?

what if the car is a special construction? or registered in another state? Can they still inspect it?

[SVT-40]

And if you looked under the hood and find no equipment violations what would be my recourse seeing that you just imobilized my car for no reason???

I was stopped once in my boyfriend car which had hood locks because of theives and I did not have the keys to the hood. I explained that to the officer and let him search my keys. He said he could cut the locks I then asked him how would I get home with out being able to secure the hood because he removed what was securing it, he opted not to cut the locks.

The officer in the above scenario acted in a reasonable manner and made a good decision. To me The point to the smog equipment laws was for the owner of the vehicle to be responsible. Not someone who maybe due to unknown circumstance be driving it at the time.

Please guys All these scenarios are hypothetical. Originally I intended the cutting the hinge pin lock comment as a joke, Really lighten up a little. But never say never to ANY situation.

I can think of an easy solution to replacing hinge pin locks.

Flex cuffs. They would allow the legal operation of the vehicle.

As for your recourse. Well if you knew the vehicle was legally equipped and still refused to open the locks, I would say it is on your dime.

But you would have the option to file a claim with the department.

[SVT-40]

what? if the officer thinks their are illegal engine modifications and believes the person doesn't have the combo they wont cut it off but if they think they know the combination they will cut them off

is that what you just said?

wow

It's called discretion. The point of the smog laws as far as I'm concerned if for the owner to be responsible.

Not the owners mother. That's the reason for different treatment.

Common sense should and usually does play some roll in making decisions.

[SVT-40]

How does this apply to Pre 1976 vehicles which are not subject to emission regulation?

are there any age/type restrictions on what the officer can inspect?

what if the car is a special construction? or registered in another state? Can they still inspect it?

As I remember any owner of "pre smog" vehicle is pretty much free to do as they wish emissions wise. I'm not sure if the cut off is 1976 though.

As for the second question, I don't understand the "age" part of the question.

As far as what he can inspect. Well pretty much all of the equipment related to lights, safety equipment and smog.

Special constructions will have a "year" assigned to them, and would have to comply with the smog rules you that aged vehicle. There would probably be exceptions for some equipment also.


The other state thing is tricky. Usually most don't ( I didn't) cite out of staters for equipment type violations. Now if the driver lived in Calif and had his vehicle registered out of state there was a specific section to use in that circumstance.

[MILLITIAof1]

The officer in the above scenario acted in a reasonable manner and made a good decision. To me The point to the smog equipment laws was for the owner of the vehicle to be responsible. Not someone who maybe due to unknown circumstance be driving it at the time.

Please guys All these scenarios are hypothetical. Originally I intended the cutting the hinge pin lock comment as a joke, Really lighten up a little. But never say never to ANY situation.

I can think of an easy solution to replacing hinge pin locks.

Flex cuffs. They would allow the legal operation of the vehicle.

As for your recourse. Well if you knew the vehicle was legally equipped and still refused to open the locks, I would say it is on your dime.

But you would have the option to file a claim with the department.

Some people like their privacy and not having their personal vehicle touched because of some bs reason.

I dont care if your a cop, fbi, or the gd president.. you dont touch my chick or my car.

[SVT-40]

This sounds a bit dicey, so profiling by gender and age is cool but race is not?

While I understand officer discretion this sounds a bit too subjective to me.
Whether or not you destroy my property under color of authority depends on my age, gender and if you think I'm lying?

I suspect there is more to this then was initially typed.

I answered most of your questions in my above replies.

The only other thing I can add is a question.

Do you reasonably believe the owner of a vehicle would go to the trouble and expense to install locking hood pins on his vehicle and not have the ability to open said pins?

I really doubt it.

Remember decisions made by LEO's are made based on the TOTALITY of the circumstances and facts of that particular incident.

It's very difficult to make up a "perfect scenario" where there is only one correct answer or course of action. There are usually many different right answers.

As for your use of the term "profiling". Well that just doesn't ring true. I used the scenario about the middle aged woman to make a point and show how two distinctly different drivers of the same vehicle "could" be treated differently. According to the law the violation did occur. But using common sense and discretion will sometimes lead to different outcomes.

I really hope you don't desire a world where the law is only black and white? and there is no discretion?

If that's the case everyone going one MPH over the limit would be cited. Every "rolling" stop would be cited. People with a little itty bit of marijuana would be cited. and so on.

Not the world I would like to live in.

[SVT-40]

Some people like their privacy and not having their personal vehicle touched because of some bs reason.

I dont care if your a cop, fbi, or the gd president.. you dont touch my chick or my car.

I'm not being contrary, but if you drive on the highway and either drive or equip your vehicle in an illegal way.

It's not the Cops fault.

It's your actions that you get pulled over and cited.

As for your "chick" ..... well never mind.... Only kidding.

[CaliTheKid]

SVT-40-- Really well crafted responses. You write some good paper.

[AJAX22]

As I remember any owner of "pre smog" vehicle is pretty much free to do as they wish emissions wise. I'm not sure if the cut off is 1976 though.

As for the second question, I don't understand the "age" part of the question.

As far as what he can inspect. Well pretty much all of the equipment related to lights, safety equipment and smog.

Special constructions will have a "year" assigned to them, and would have to comply with the smog rules you that aged vehicle. There would probably be exceptions for some equipment also.


The other state thing is tricky. Usually most don't ( I didn't) cite out of staters for equipment type violations. Now if the driver lived in Calif and had his vehicle registered out of state there was a specific section to use in that circumstance.

The cut off is definitely 1976... I bought my 1977 pickup truck with the understanding that I would not have to smog it the next year.... and then Arnold eliminated the rolling exemption... so now I have a 1 year shy vehicle for the rest of time.

As far as age, It was my understanding that a car only had to comply with the rules at the time it was constructed/titled... i.e. a 32 ford only has to comply with the 1932 safety/lighting/smog/mirror requirements, etc. a 1962 dart does not have to have seatbelts and can run multiple headlights etc.

What I was wondering was if there was a specific exemption in CA which waved basicly everything if the vehicle was older than a specific date.

It was my understanding as well that under a certain GVW at one time roadsters were also able to be registered as motorcycles and were able to be exempted from ALL regulation.

I don't mean to ask a bunch of pesky questions, but I really really really don't like people telling me what I can do with my vehicle and would like to avoid being in that situation..

[odysseus]

As far as age, It was my understanding that a car only had to comply with the rules at the time it was constructed/titled... i.e. a 32 ford only has to comply with the 1932 safety/lighting/smog/mirror requirements, etc. a 1962 dart does not have to have seatbelts and can run multiple headlights etc.

Just as a side note to this conversation, the California Air Resources Board is actively attempting to screw with this exemption. It comes up from time to time leaking out of their offices. They are toying with the idea of pushing smog requirements on pre 1976 cars.

I could see a situation with the insanity of CARB that only vehicles registered as "historic" vehicles be allowed to continue, with again massively controlled low annual mileage restrictions.

This is their power hungry path, as with other things they do, which has no basis in reality and science.
.

[SVT-40]

The cut off is definitely 1976... I bought my 1977 pickup truck with the understanding that I would not have to smog it the next year.... and then Arnold eliminated the rolling exemption... so now I have a 1 year shy vehicle for the rest of time.

As far as age, It was my understanding that a car only had to comply with the rules at the time it was constructed/titled... i.e. a 32 ford only has to comply with the 1932 safety/lighting/smog/mirror requirements, etc. a 1962 dart does not have to have seatbelts and can run multiple headlights etc.

What I was wondering was if there was a specific exemption in CA which waved basicly everything if the vehicle was older than a specific date.

It was my understanding as well that under a certain GVW at one time roadsters were also able to be registered as motorcycles and were able to be exempted from ALL regulation.

I don't mean to ask a bunch of pesky questions, but I really really really don't like people telling me what I can do with my vehicle and would like to avoid being in that situation..

Hey, these are not pesky questions. That's why this forum is here.

I don't have a copy of a Calif Vehicle Code handy, But there are many exemptions base on year and weight.

Probably you best place to get the absolutely correct answers is buy yourself a copy of the Vehicle code. They are pretty cheap. and make good bathroom reading.They are available at all DMV offices.

To bad about your 77 P/U. That was a cheap shot by the Gov.

[Fire in the Hole]

Maybe I can answer one of your questions. You are correct about equipment of vehicles being allowed on all CA roads, in the way they rolled off the assembly line. Except for child seats of course. If you have a model A Ford, and little kids... But then that is not a permanate attachment. If you own a Desoto or a Studebaker, without back-up lamps, horn, or safety belts, etc. then you do not have to retro-fit them.

I can't answer your roadster question. The DMV would be the place to take that one for registration questions.

[Rule .308]

No vehicles are smog exempt, they must all retain the emissions equipment and original configuration that they rolled off the assembly line with, no exceptions. Just because the pre '75 cars are exempt from inspections it does not mean you have free rein to stuff what ever you want under the hood. Just like back in the day when they made 8500 GVW vehicles exempt, i.e. motorhomes, everybody ripped off the smog crap and stuffed performance cams and manifolds in their R.V.s. Well, that boomeranged and bit them in the butt fast, they changed the law a few years later and made them all subject to emissions testing and and all of these fools got caught flat footed with modified engines. Anybody know what the cost limit is for missing, modified, or disconnected emissions equipment? I'm sure you can guess that there is no limit. Just because you are not subject to smog inspections does not mean that you can modify your car.